Manjeet Kumar vs. State Of Uttarakhand Through Superintendent Of Police District Haridwar

Facts

The petitioner, Mr. Bilal Ahmed, filed a writ application seeking to quash an FIR registered on March 26, 2022, bearing criminal case no. 117 of 2022 at Police Station Kankhal, District Haridwar. The FIR was registered against unknown persons under Sections 406 and 420 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. Although the petitioner's name was not initially in the FIR, a co-accused, upon arrest, confessed to the police that the petitioner was involved in the crime. The confession stated that both the petitioner and the co-accused committed cheating, misappropriated nine quintals of Ghee, and failed to pay the Goods and Services Tax (GST) on the same.

Held

The Court held that while a co-accused's confession made before a police officer is considered weak evidence, it can serve as a clue for the investigating agency to pursue further investigation against the person implicated. The Court found that in this case, there was sufficient material to proceed against the petitioner. Therefore, the Court was not inclined to quash the FIR. The Court acknowledged the petitioner's submission to issue a mandamus to the investigating officer to follow the ratio laid down in Arnesh Kumar vs. State of Bihar, but the State's counsel submitted that no such repeated orders were necessary. Consequently, the writ application was dismissed as devoid of merits, and the interim order dated December 2, 2022, was vacated.

Key Issues

1. Whether the FIR registered under Sections 406 and 420 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, should be quashed in light of the petitioner's alleged involvement based on a co-accused's confession made before the police. Petitioner's Contention: The petitioner sought to quash the FIR, arguing that their name was not initially reflected in it. They implicitly relied on the principle that FIRs should only be quashed in rare and exceptional cases, suggesting this case might not meet that threshold without further substantiation. Revenue's (State's) Contention: The State argued that while a co-accused's confession before the police is weak evidence, it serves as a clue for the investigating agency to proceed. They further contended that the Supreme Court's directions in Arnesh Kumar vs. State of Bihar, (2014) 8 SCC 273, do not necessitate issuing repeated orders in every case, implying that the investigation should proceed based on the available material.